US health care bill passes the Senate

[Simon_Jester]

"Utopian" can be a very situational thing. It would be utopian for Belgium to believe itself able to virtually singlehandedly invade Iraq and move it off the front pages in 6-7 years but it would not be utopian for a country like the United States, England, Russia, or China to assume this. In forgetting to account for dishonesty and duplicity, the concept of getting to UHC in a single go was utterly unrealistic.

Unrealistic (in the sense of "impractical") and utopian are not the same thing. To be utopian, an impractical idea must also be an unprecedented one, one that has not been realized in other times and places.

So... you favor single-payer health care, then?

Not at all. You said that only someone willing to undertake the gargantuan effort required to slim down and streamline the language has a legitimate right to complain; since I'd regard that as an acceptable price, I was saying that my complaining is legitimate by the standard you set.

In this case, the effort required includes delegating more of the details to the executive branch... which in this case would require single-payer health care. So long as we try to set the details at the legislative level, for whatever reasons, the bills wind up being huge.

I do not favor such a thing but the bill is still much too long; that the Senate bill includes a provision to funnel $300 million to Louisiana and about $100 million to Nebraska is well-known and both things written into the bill constitute unnecessary text that extend its length. Even if you only had to funnel perks and favors to part of the Senate, that is still length that is not needed to achieve the stated goal.

True. This length was not needed to achieve health care reform. It was only needed to counteract the bad faith of enemies of health care reform: in this case, of the senators from those states who refused to support the bill until given a suitable helping of pork. And also the bad faith of the forty Republican senators who stood in a block against all attempts at compromise... even after pretending that they wanted such a compromise as a tactic to get the supporters of health care reform to make less ambitious proposals, in the vain hope that at least one or two Republicans might be willing to play along.

My chief complaint, and I believe this is Shep's as well, is that the stated goal is actually very simple and there were no extremely complicated rule-ridden solutions to healthcare costs were mentioned to voters so the bill is unforgivably massive given what it is attempting to do. Now, if it is attempting to do OTHER things that were omitted from public disclosure, a longer bill is certainly justified but secret provisions of that sort would legitimate Republican whining about bad faith and deliberate lack of transparency. It would seem that neither possibility is especially complimentary: either the bill is ludicrously complicated and bloated with unnecessary pages or the bill has the bare minimum of pages needed to do what the writers want it to do... but the writers do not see the need to be honest with the voters about what they are attempting to accomplish.

The former seems more likely: the bill is ludicrously complicated and bloated, because a much simpler method of achieving the same (or better) results while cutting through reams of bullshit was off the table from the beginning, because the idea of single-payer health care makes so many powerful people in this country quake in terror for some reason.

Only a single-payer system can be explained simply, because only such a system can take the form "We will give agency X a pile of Y dollars to achieve Z." Otherwise, you will NEED to revise the exemptions and loopholes in the tax code, to revise regulations on the insurance agency, to revise any existing government programs that already take the XYZ format I mentioned, and so on. It's a lot messier to do it that way.

Imagine how complicated Shep's vaunted naval appropriations bill could have been if the whole thing had been done through an elaborate structure of public subscriptions with mandatory punishments for not paying into the subscription, as a way of funneling as much money as possible into private shipbuilding firms for fear of strengthening the public navy yards.

[Serafine666]

Unrealistic (in the sense of "impractical") and utopian are not the same thing. To be utopian, an impractical idea must also be an unprecedented one, one that has not been realized in other times and places.

Ah, my mistake.

In this case, the effort required includes delegating more of the details to the executive branch... which in this case would require single-payer health care. So long as we try to set the details at the legislative level, for whatever reasons, the bills wind up being huge.

I'm not so sure that's the case. You can write a law that, for example, reforms tort claims related to medicine to reduce the cost of healthcare and that shouldn't be particularly complicated or require a slew of rules. Writing a bill that demolishes barriers to insurance companies competing nationally would also be relatively uncomplicated and free of many rules. There are ample ways to reduce the rate of healthcare cost increases that don't require five hundred pages of rules for every concept you put in. Yes, single-payer is certainly one of these but it is not the only one.

True. This length was not needed to achieve health care reform. It was only needed to counteract the bad faith of enemies of health care reform: in this case, of the senators from those states who refused to support the bill until given a suitable helping of pork. And also the bad faith of the forty Republican senators who stood in a block against all attempts at compromise... even after pretending that they wanted such a compromise as a tactic to get the supporters of health care reform to make less ambitious proposals, in the vain hope that at least one or two Republicans might be willing to play along.

I'd submit that if you need to buy votes for a bill, you haven't produced a bill that can succeed on its own merits. You know what I think would be the ultimate propaganda triumph? If the Democrats roped in their two independents and passed a relatively consequential bill that has no buy-offs, no favors, no gifts, no pork, and total transparency. They could promise to do this beforehand and then triumphantly present the bill for public consumption declaring "see, unlike those greedy, unprincipled Republican stooges of the monied lobbyists WE can pass legislation without deals in smoke-filled rooms." I may not support the Democrats but if they could pull that off, I might vote for one if only to encourage ONE of the parties to grow up.

The former seems more likely: the bill is ludicrously complicated and bloated, because a much simpler method of achieving the same (or better) results while cutting through reams of bullshit was off the table from the beginning, because the idea of single-payer health care makes so many powerful people in this country quake in terror for some reason.

They believe that putting any degree of economic control in the hands of the government will cause serious problems. They also have noted that once the government gains a power or a level of control, it never gives it up even if it ends up making the problem worse. Healthcare is a major piece of the economy and single-payer means that the government has control of it; they are scared that a big percentage of the economy (that is also an extremely important component of quality of life) will disappear into the hands of the juggernaut and even outright failure will not make it release its grip. Given American history (England, Germany, France, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Norway, etc etc etc are not America), their concerns are not entirely without merit although they are generally overblown.

Imagine how complicated Shep's vaunted naval appropriations bill could have been if the whole thing had been done through an elaborate structure of public subscriptions with mandatory punishments for not paying into the subscription, as a way of funneling as much money as possible into private shipbuilding firms for fear of strengthening the public navy yards.

I don't want to imagine that...

[bobalot]

They believe that putting any degree of economic control in the hands of the government will cause serious problems.

Yet "they" provide absolutely no evidence this will be the case.

Healthcare is a major piece of the economy and single-payer means that the government has control of it;

So what? That's what the rest of the industrial world does and most of these countries do a more efficient job.

They also have noted that once the government gains a power or a level of control, it never gives it up even if it ends up making the problem worse.

There have been many governments around the world that have withdrawn from many industries they once controlled. This is an utter load of libertarian horse shit. Where is the evidence for this claim that government never gives up control.

Given American history (England, Germany, France, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Norway, etc etc etc are not America), their concerns are not entirely without merit although they are generally overblown.

This is the American exceptionalism bullshit you always trot out. What exactly is the "merit" in their arguments? In the last thread about this issue where many people demanded that you tell us what this "merit" was (with evidence), you constantly failed to do so.

[Simon_Jester]

In this case, the effort required includes delegating more of the details to the executive branch... which in this case would require single-payer health care. So long as we try to set the details at the legislative level, for whatever reasons, the bills wind up being huge.

I'm not so sure that's the case. You can write a law that, for example, reforms tort claims related to medicine to reduce the cost of healthcare and that shouldn't be particularly complicated or require a slew of rules. Writing a bill that demolishes barriers to insurance companies competing nationally would also be relatively uncomplicated and free of many rules. There are ample ways to reduce the rate of healthcare cost increases that don't require five hundred pages of rules for every concept you put in. Yes, single-payer is certainly one of these but it is not the only one.

All right, point. There are a variety of ways to reform health care that would not require long bills. On the other hand, not all of them are ways you'd like, so I'm not sure that this makes the length of the bill a major subject for valid complaints in and of itself. The bill the Democratic Party would like to pass might very well be shorter than the one they ended up passing... but you'd like it even less than the one we actually got.

True. This length was not needed to achieve health care reform. It was only needed to counteract the bad faith of enemies of health care reform: in this case, of the senators from those states who refused to support the bill until given a suitable helping of pork. And also the bad faith of the forty Republican senators who stood in a block against all attempts at compromise... even after pretending that they wanted such a compromise as a tactic to get the supporters of health care reform to make less ambitious proposals, in the vain hope that at least one or two Republicans might be willing to play along.

I'd submit that if you need to buy votes for a bill, you haven't produced a bill that can succeed on its own merits.

This is true only if the opposition has not been bribed to oppose the bill regardless of the bill's merits and popular support. Which, in this case, isn't really true. Note that this is a situation where the "opposition" includes a modest fraction of the Democrats' own party; hence the difficulty in getting a cloture vote.

The fact that politicians can be bribed does not prove that the bill they were bribed to oppose is in any way invalid.
_______

You know what I think would be the ultimate propaganda triumph? If the Democrats roped in their two independents and passed a relatively consequential bill that has no buy-offs, no favors, no gifts, no pork, and total transparency. They could promise to do this beforehand and then triumphantly present the bill for public consumption declaring "see, unlike those greedy, unprincipled Republican stooges of the monied lobbyists WE can pass legislation without deals in smoke-filled rooms." I may not support the Democrats but if they could pull that off, I might vote for one if only to encourage ONE of the parties to grow up.

How do you think this could be accomplished? Would it not require all the Democratic senators to be free of corruption, or have massively competent and intimidating leadership that could enforce Republican levels of party discipline on the right wing of their own party? Is this a reasonable expectation, given the present state of American politics?

What are the odds of a bill passing on its own merits these days, given that it has to pass cloture because the Republicans oppose anything the Democrats do aside from "exactly what we would have done?" And given that there are at least a few Republicans-disguised-as-Democrats that have to be bought in to make up the cloture votes?

They believe that putting any degree of economic control in the hands of the government will cause serious problems. They also have noted that once the government gains a power or a level of control, it never gives it up even if it ends up making the problem worse.

It is to laugh. Many of these same people cheerfully voted for the Bush and Obama stimulus packages, for instance. They didn't make politically risky moves to eliminate government power over parts of the economy during the Bush years, except when those moves were convenient for large corporations. Remember how you used to get rhetoric from Republicans opposed to the Department of Education? Whatever happened to that?

Where were these libertarian principles when the Republicans had the power to do whatever they damn well pleased, with the Democrats too disorganized to manage the kind of massed filibuster vollies the Republicans are delivering these days?

Imagine how complicated Shep's vaunted naval appropriations bill could have been if the whole thing had been done through an elaborate structure of public subscriptions with mandatory punishments for not paying into the subscription, as a way of funneling as much money as possible into private shipbuilding firms for fear of strengthening the public navy yards.

I don't want to imagine that...

This is exactly what I was getting at; it would be a ludicrous mess, because that's a stupidly inefficient way to build battleships. And it's an equally stupid way to build a health care system.

[His Divine Shadow]

Someone told me that Obama was messing up the health care bill on purpose, so he could force a single payer system on americans (which they don't want, uhuh...) afterward

I was quite baffeed and didn't know what to answer but I decided to just go with "Cool."

[J]

Someone told me that Obama was messing up the health care bill on purpose, so he could force a single payer system on americans (which they don't want, uhuh...) afterward

You mean like this? I have a hard time giving the US government credit for that degree of competence. The Democrats can't legislate their way out of a paper bag and somehow they've come up with this scheme for breaking the hold of the entire healthcare & pharmaceuticals industry? I have my doubts to say the least.

[Surlethe]

Okay, two people debating Serafine666 is plenty. This is a preemptive breaking up of any dogpiling.

[Simon_Jester]

Though I think the idea of this whole charade as the first step in a larger gambit is interesting in its own right (independent of any reply to Serafine666 or any of Serafine666's own statements)... I agree with J. It's too unlikely a gambit to work, and bringing it off would be far beyond the level of political skill that Obama and the congressional Democrats have shown.

The article J links to seems particularly silly to me, because it doesn't explain how a public single-payer system would arise after the projected collapse of the mandatory health insurance system.

Also, when claiming that mandatory health insurance purchases are unconstitutional, it ignores the analogy to auto insurance, which all motorists are required to purchase in the US to keep their license, and which* could be cited as a precedent.

*I think

[Serafine666]

All right, point. There are a variety of ways to reform health care that would not require long bills. On the other hand, not all of them are ways you'd like, so I'm not sure that this makes the length of the bill a major subject for valid complaints in and of itself. The bill the Democratic Party would like to pass might very well be shorter than the one they ended up passing... but you'd like it even less than the one we actually got.

This is quite true. However, unnecessary complication, instances of bribery or payoffs, etc just make the entire thing worse. You can almost swallow a bill that does something you disagree with if you're certain that everyone did what they thought was best, whether for their own welfare or for the country generally. Instead, it may be a bill I conceptually dislike AND everyone is injecting special treatment, tax favors, and payoffs to ensure that it gets passed. It's the old saw of "insult to injury."

This is true only if the opposition has not been bribed to oppose the bill regardless of the bill's merits and popular support. Which, in this case, isn't really true. Note that this is a situation where the "opposition" includes a modest fraction of the Democrats' own party; hence the difficulty in getting a cloture vote.

The fact that politicians can be bribed does not prove that the bill they were bribed to oppose is in any way invalid.

Nor does it prove validity but I concede the point. Still, there is something vaguely distasteful about fighting fire with fire in a piece of legislation with so many consequences.

How do you think this could be accomplished? Would it not require all the Democratic senators to be free of corruption, or have massively competent and intimidating leadership that could enforce Republican levels of party discipline on the right wing of their own party? Is this a reasonable expectation, given the present state of American politics?

Of course it's unrealistic. It's probably even borderline utopian. It'd still be a wonderful difference from the present situation and anyone who could achieve it would have a rhetorical sledgehammer of unimaginable effect.

What are the odds of a bill passing on its own merits these days, given that it has to pass cloture because the Republicans oppose anything the Democrats do aside from "exactly what we would have done?" And given that there are at least a few Republicans-disguised-as-Democrats that have to be bought in to make up the cloture votes?

Point. The Senate couldn't even be unanimous about declaring war on Japan after they effectively declared war on us by making a military attack against a military target. Although a bill COULD pass on its own merits if both sides agreed about the goal and the approach. Both sides agree with the goal of fixing healthcare but they have no real agreement about the approach and when it comes right down to it, the Democrats have no need to compromise with Republicans over anything which is a nice perk of being overwhelmingly dominant in the government.

It is to laugh. Many of these same people cheerfully voted for the Bush and Obama stimulus packages, for instance. They didn't make politically risky moves to eliminate government power over parts of the economy during the Bush years, except when those moves were convenient for large corporations. Remember how you used to get rhetoric from Republicans opposed to the Department of Education? Whatever happened to that?

It was sacrificed to the god of the magic middle along with most of the rest of the things that secured the Republicans' hold on their electoral base. They discovered to their great sorrow that independents have good memories, seem to have a shred of principle, and cannot be won by abandoning your positions to cater to their whims (and the abandonment makes the base go away).

Where were these libertarian principles when the Republicans had the power to do whatever they damn well pleased, with the Democrats too disorganized to manage the kind of massed filibuster vollies the Republicans are delivering these days?

Where indeed. You may not know it by looking, Simon, but you're hardly the only person who noticed that the Republicans forgot their integrity the moment they got enough power. Which is why they need the reinvention you mentioned in another thread.

This is exactly what I was getting at; it would be a ludicrous mess, because that's a stupidly inefficient way to build battleships. And it's an equally stupid way to build a health care system.

No kidding, man. Part of the myriad of reasons I can trot out to be annoyed by the length and complication of the present healthcare bill without even touching the goals or process.

[Serafine666]

Yet "they" provide absolutely no evidence this will be the case.

Never said otherwise, Bobalot.

So what? That's what the rest of the industrial world does and most of these countries do a more efficient job.

Good question to ask the "they", Bobalot.

There have been many governments around the world that have withdrawn from many industries they once controlled. This is an utter load of libertarian horse shit. Where is the evidence for this claim that government never gives up control?

Where has the American government done so? The subject is, after all, about American lawmakers looking at American history.

This is the American exceptionalism bullshit you always trot out.

You mean where I point out that Germany, Switzerland, Norway, England, etc aren't the United States? I can see why you think that's "bullshit"... sorta... if I really strain my imagination.

[bobalot]

There have been many governments around the world that have withdrawn from many industries they once controlled. This is an utter load of libertarian horse shit. Where is the evidence for this claim that government never gives up control?

Where has the American government done so? The subject is, after all, about American lawmakers looking at American history.

You want an example?

In 1917, the railways in America proved unable to handle the demands of gearing up the economy for the first World War. Most of them were nationalised and put under the control of the United States Railroad Administration. The agency improved efficiency by standardising rolling stock and locomotive design and getting rid of unnecessary duplication of workshops, facilities and terminals. These companies were handed back to their owners in 1920.

Anyway you stated:

they also have noted that once the government gains a power or a level of control, it never gives it up even if it ends up making the problem worse.

1. The fact that withdrawing from certain sectors hasn't happened in America is irreverent (which BTW, I have already proven incorrect). If other countries industrialised western nations can do it, so can America.
2. In the case of health care, this point is irrelevant as direct government control in the form of UHC has been shown to work better in nearly every other industrialised nation (and a few third world nations).

This is the American exceptionalism bullshit you always trot out.

You mean where I point out that Germany, Switzerland, Norway, England, etc aren't the United States? I can see why you think that's "bullshit"... sorta... if I really strain my imagination.

You are an evasive douchebag, you were not simply pointing out the fact they are different countries. If that were the case, your "point" would be an utter red herring which has no bearing on anything.

How is pointing out that England is not America in itself relevant to anything? Of course they aren't the same, they are two different fucking countries. You are trying to imply that since they are different, America might not be able to implement a system similar to the system in England (or Germany, Switzerland, Norway, etc). There is absolutely no evidence for this.

[Simon_Jester]

This is quite true. However, unnecessary complication, instances of bribery or payoffs, etc just make the entire thing worse. You can almost swallow a bill that does something you disagree with if you're certain that everyone did what they thought was best, whether for their own welfare or for the country generally. Instead, it may be a bill I conceptually dislike AND everyone is injecting special treatment, tax favors, and payoffs to ensure that it gets passed. It's the old saw of "insult to injury."

But how does that square with the fact that most of that special treatment was injected into the bill as a compromise with people who, broadly speaking, agree with you on the issue?* This bill started out as something very different and was changed and diluted by the need to compromise with the right wing of the Democrats and the (failed, dumb) attempt to compromise with the left wing of the Republicans.

If you stonewall a bill with the intent of forcing inaction on the issue, then have the opposition narrowly squeak by with a compromise-riddled version of the bill despite your best attempts at masonry, you're in a poor position to complain that the bill is full of compromises.

*Or, at least, come closer to agreeing with you than the people who initiated the bill do.

Point. The Senate couldn't even be unanimous about declaring war on Japan after they effectively declared war on us by making a military attack against a military target. Although a bill COULD pass on its own merits if both sides agreed about the goal and the approach. Both sides agree with the goal of fixing healthcare but they have no real agreement about the approach and when it comes right down to it, the Democrats have no need to compromise with Republicans over anything which is a nice perk of being overwhelmingly dominant in the government.

Moreover, the reason the Democrats dominate the government is that the bulk of the American public has rejected the Republicans' current approach to problem-solving. There is no reason to assume that it would be in the public interest to pass bills the Republican Party approves of until the Republican Party realigns itself with the public interest.

It was sacrificed to the god of the magic middle along with most of the rest of the things that secured the Republicans' hold on their electoral base. They discovered to their great sorrow that independents have good memories, seem to have a shred of principle, and cannot be won by abandoning your positions to cater to their whims (and the abandonment makes the base go away).

Yes, but returning to your base and begging them to take you back, even if it works, doesn't win elections. You see, the "magic middle" isn't magical at all; it's just that they're a big enough voting bloc that Republicans can't win without them.

Trying to angrily reject the middle in the name of remobilizing the (small) Republican base isn't going to work. It's going to reduce the Republicans to a status of permanent minority, and effectively knock them out of political discourse in this country. If you think there's anything worth saving in the current Republican party, you shouldn't want this to happen.

I'm not sure I do think so, so I'm perfectly willing to watch them rot if they're stupid enough to want to. But I'm me.

Where indeed. You may not know it by looking, Simon, but you're hardly the only person who noticed that the Republicans forgot their integrity the moment they got enough power. Which is why they need the reinvention you mentioned in another thread.

The problem isn't just that they "forgot their integrity," it's that they were wrong on many issues. A lot of the things they claimed were a good idea in 1994 were not good ideas.

Some of them probably knew this, and much of what they said they were going to do, I suspect that they never really intended to do. Instead, they were trying to mislead people in order to capitalize on people who were frustrated with the system. Once they had succeeded in riding into office on the shoulders of all the useful idiots who thought abolishing the Department of Education to lower taxes another percentage point was a good idea, they had no further need of those people and thus never really bothered with their campaign promise. Because they knew damn well that if they actually did all the things they promised their base they'd do, the results would be such an obvious debacle that everyone outside their base would turn on them.

Eventually, that's exactly what happened. The Republicans put themselves in a bind between promising folly to people who believed that folly was the best way to run the country, and actually having to run the country. If they broke their word they alienated their base, but if they kept it they'd run the country into the ground and alienate everyone else.

Unfortunately for their party and the interests linked to it, the Republicans smart enough to realize this are no longer in control, having been replaced by a swarm of teabaggers.

[Serafine666]

But how does that square with the fact that most of that special treatment was injected into the bill as a compromise with people who, broadly speaking, agree with you on the issue?* This bill started out as something very different and was changed and diluted by the need to compromise with the right wing of the Democrats and the (failed, dumb) attempt to compromise with the left wing of the Republicans.

*Or, at least, come closer to agreeing with you than the people who initiated the bill do.

I don't distinguish between giving goodies to the people I like and giving goodies to the people I don't like... neither one is good and both make a bill less easy to swallow.

If you stonewall a bill with the intent of forcing inaction on the issue, then have the opposition narrowly squeak by with a compromise-riddled version of the bill despite your best attempts at masonry, you're in a poor position to complain that the bill is full of compromises.

Why is it illegitimate to complain that the opposition was willing to buy votes at any price to get something I would have preferred not happen at all? Yes, my preferred situation is the bill not pass but failing that, I'd just as soon see a bill that represents limited achievements but broad agreement instead of "I'll give you $300 million if you vote this way."

Moreover, the reason the Democrats dominate the government is that the bulk of the American public has rejected the Republicans' current approach to problem-solving. There is no reason to assume that it would be in the public interest to pass bills the Republican Party approves of until the Republican Party realigns itself with the public interest.

Exactly correct.

Yes, but returning to your base and begging them to take you back, even if it works, doesn't win elections. You see, the "magic middle" isn't magical at all; it's just that they're a big enough voting bloc that Republicans can't win without them.

I probably shouldn't be as sarcastic but I'm mildly bitter that the Republicans decided to whore themselves out to get the middle and both failed to get the middle AND abandoned their base. Thus my comments about the middle being principled: they can smell a pandering fake which is why the Republican approach didn't work.

Trying to angrily reject the middle in the name of remobilizing the (small) Republican base isn't going to work. It's going to reduce the Republicans to a status of permanent minority, and effectively knock them out of political discourse in this country. If you think there's anything worth saving in the current Republican party, you shouldn't want this to happen.

I've always ascribed to the notion that if you stake out a principled position and are consistent about it, the middle will vote for you. The Republicans staked out a position, held their ground weakly, then abandoned it to beg for the middle's support. Wrong formula.

I'm not sure I do think so, so I'm perfectly willing to watch them rot if they're stupid enough to want to. But I'm me.

You're sorta me too, actually.

The problem isn't just that they "forgot their integrity," it's that they were wrong on many issues. A lot of the things they claimed were a good idea in 1994 were not good ideas.

We'll never know because they didn't keep to them or make a serious attempt to revise them in reaction to the failings.

Some of them probably knew this, and much of what they said they were going to do, I suspect that they never really intended to do. Instead, they were trying to mislead people in order to capitalize on people who were frustrated with the system. Once they had succeeded in riding into office on the shoulders of all the useful idiots who thought abolishing the Department of Education to lower taxes another percentage point was a good idea, they had no further need of those people and thus never really bothered with their campaign promise. Because they knew damn well that if they actually did all the things they promised their base they'd do, the results would be such an obvious debacle that everyone outside their base would turn on them.

Possibly. Again, their lack of principle makes it impossible to know just how their ideas would have worked out because they didn't even try to do anything with them. We'll soon know how the cobbled-together revision to healthcare works out because the Democrats DID do something with their idea. If it's a debacle, well, we'll know; same with an overwhelming success. But the Republicans partly failed in their unwillingness to try to do what they vowed.

Eventually, that's exactly what happened. The Republicans put themselves in a bind between promising folly to people who believed that folly was the best way to run the country, and actually having to run the country. If they broke their word they alienated their base, but if they kept it they'd run the country into the ground and alienate everyone else.

Unfortunately for their party and the interests linked to it, the Republicans smart enough to realize this are no longer in control, having been replaced by a swarm of teabaggers.

Maybe the teabaggers will be more realistic. We'll see.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't distinguish between giving goodies to the people I like and giving goodies to the people I don't like... neither one is good and both make a bill less easy to swallow.

That doesn't improve your position. The goodies were only required to take a bill that was already supported by the public and squeeze it past a single obstacle, and the obstacle came from your allies. If you object to the giving of goodies, it makes at least as much sense to blame the recipients (who demanded the goodies as a price to get the bill through) as to blame the bill or the people who were trying to get it through.

Why is it illegitimate to complain that the opposition was willing to buy votes at any price to get something I would have preferred not happen at all? Yes, my preferred situation is the bill not pass but failing that, I'd just as soon see a bill that represents limited achievements but broad agreement instead of "I'll give you $300 million if you vote this way."

In that case, you should be honest about saying you would be opposed to the bill categorically, no matter what was in it (which is the de facto position of the Republican Party on this issue). Instead, you were condemning it for having been compromised as far as possible, to get as broad a consensus as possible, to the point of earning majority support... and then having to have ~1% pork added on by weight in order to get the supermajority required to overrun the minority's delaying tactics.

Moreover, the reason the Democrats dominate the government is that the bulk of the American public has rejected the Republicans' current approach to problem-solving. There is no reason to assume that it would be in the public interest to pass bills the Republican Party approves of until the Republican Party realigns itself with the public interest.

Exactly correct.

If you agree with this, then I find it hard to understand why you would think it desirable that bills passed in the Senate reflect a "broad consensus" that includes Republicans or pseudo-Republicans claiming to be Democrats.

If a party is demonstrably and consistently opposed to the public interest, there is no reason to think that they have a right to demand that people compromise with them. They may be able to force compromises, either by their own strength or by the weakness of their enemies, but that doesn't give them a right to it.
____

I probably shouldn't be as sarcastic but I'm mildly bitter that the Republicans decided to whore themselves out to get the middle and both failed to get the middle AND abandoned their base. Thus my comments about the middle being principled: they can smell a pandering fake which is why the Republican approach didn't work.

True. On the other hand, you could equally well say that the middle perceived that the Republicans' base really was what the party stood for. And that they categorically rejected the party for that reason, in numbers large enough to overwhelm the Republican base. What does that say about the Republicans' current political stance, or about their base?

I've always ascribed to the notion that if you stake out a principled position and are consistent about it, the middle will vote for you. The Republicans staked out a position, held their ground weakly, then abandoned it to beg for the middle's support. Wrong formula.

I do not think the middle are so easily fooled into shooting themselves in the foot. In 1994 that might have worked, because the Republicans had something new in mind. It was stupid, but it at least had the virtue of novelty going for it. But it's not going to work so well in 2010, when taking a "principled stand" on a platform that fighting in Iraq is important to defeat the terrorists, that welfare is socialism, and that big business should be free of regulation are all grossly discredited ideas.

Taking a principled stand does not get you many extra points with people who know you are wrong. Some, but not many.

The problem isn't just that they "forgot their integrity," it's that they were wrong on many issues. A lot of the things they claimed were a good idea in 1994 were not good ideas.

We'll never know because they didn't keep to them or make a serious attempt to revise them in reaction to the failings.

I'm pretty sure I know, speaking for myself...

Unfortunately for their party and the interests linked to it, the Republicans smart enough to realize this are no longer in control, having been replaced by a swarm of teabaggers.

Maybe the teabaggers will be more realistic. We'll see.

Serafine, if they were realistic, they wouldn't be teabaggers. They'd understand things like:
-Barack Obama is not a cartoon villain.
-"Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" is a stupid slogan.
-Sarah Palin is not a viable presidential candidate.

And so on. If you see a person who can't tell that these things are true, it's a pretty good sign that they're an imbecile. Or, at best, that they live in a reality-warping bubble so thick that they might as well be an imbecile, because no real truth can pass into the bubble and no good decision can pass out of the bubble without being warped beyond recognition.

[Serafine666]

That doesn't improve your position. The goodies were only required to take a bill that was already supported by the public and squeeze it past a single obstacle, and the obstacle came from your allies. If you object to the giving of goodies, it makes at least as much sense to blame the recipients (who demanded the goodies as a price to get the bill through) as to blame the bill or the people who were trying to get it through.

I do blame the goody-seekers for greed but also the goody-givers for giving it to them. What you refer to as my "allies" were not obstructing a bill that was in high demand but one that was sort of popular when the right question was asked.

In that case, you should be honest about saying you would be opposed to the bill categorically, no matter what was in it (which is the de facto position of the Republican Party on this issue). Instead, you were condemning it for having been compromised as far as possible, to get as broad a consensus as possible, to the point of earning majority support... and then having to have ~1% pork added on by weight in order to get the supermajority required to overrun the minority's delaying tactics.

That wouldn't be honest because that is not my position.

If you agree with this, then I find it hard to understand why you would think it desirable that bills passed in the Senate reflect a "broad consensus" that includes Republicans or pseudo-Republicans claiming to be Democrats.

Because a broad consensus would inevitably result in very little action but that small amount of action would get the most attention and therefore probably end up being the most effective. A short bill that gets 100 hours of work is going to be a vastly superior product to gigantic bill that gets the same amount of work.

If a party is demonstrably and consistently opposed to the public interest, there is no reason to think that they have a right to demand that people compromise with them. They may be able to force compromises, either by their own strength or by the weakness of their enemies, but that doesn't give them a right to it.

It all depends upon whether the compromises they demand are in the public interest or not. The compromise with Liebermann over the public option is an open question as is the attempt by Nelson to get some sort of abortion compromise. But improving the medical litigation system would be in the public interest. Making health insurance "portable" would be in the public interest. Why does the minority not have the right to demand either of those things as compromises? If the Democrats were in the minority and demanded that the public option be added, arguing that it would help the public, wouldn't they have a right to demand that compromise?

True. On the other hand, you could equally well say that the middle perceived that the Republicans' base really was what the party stood for. And that they categorically rejected the party for that reason, in numbers large enough to overwhelm the Republican base. What does that say about the Republicans' current political stance, or about their base?

If true, it'd mean that we are a nation of Demicans and Republicrats like some libertarians say. As it is, both parties pursue different bases while trying to win the votes of those that aren't in either camp and the bases mark the difference between the two parties. Apparently, neither base is THAT objectionable to the middle because both parties have gotten significant traction while appealing to their bases in the past.

I do not think the middle are so easily fooled into shooting themselves in the foot. In 1994 that might have worked, because the Republicans had something new in mind. It was stupid, but it at least had the virtue of novelty going for it. But it's not going to work so well in 2010, when taking a "principled stand" on a platform that fighting in Iraq is important to defeat the terrorists, that welfare is socialism, and that big business should be free of regulation are all grossly discredited ideas.

I think that's why few if any Republicans argue the third one and the first one is being phased out as that conflict winds down. The second one isn't so much a principle as literally true: the concept of welfare fits the literal definition of socialism no matter how scary the word has become. The real debate is whether that level of socialism is in the public interest; if it is, obviously some socialism is a good thing and if it is not, it merely discredits that particular iteration of socialism. Either way, referring to welfare by a term that is an accurate description isn't much of a "position."

Serafine, if they were realistic, they wouldn't be teabaggers. They'd understand things like:
-Barack Obama is not a cartoon villain.
-"Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" is a stupid slogan.
-Sarah Palin is not a viable presidential candidate.

I actually didn't know that teabaggers believed either the first thing or the third thing.

And so on. If you see a person who can't tell that these things are true, it's a pretty good sign that they're an imbecile. Or, at best, that they live in a reality-warping bubble so thick that they might as well be an imbecile, because no real truth can pass into the bubble and no good decision can pass out of the bubble without being warped beyond recognition.

Yeah, I've come across them. They're a fragment of the movement that is derisively referred to as "teabaggers".

[Simon_Jester]

Because a broad consensus would inevitably result in very little action but that small amount of action would get the most attention and therefore probably end up being the most effective. A short bill that gets 100 hours of work is going to be a vastly superior product to gigantic bill that gets the same amount of work.

This only makes sense if the consensus bill has actual content. When everyone broadly agrees on objectives and no one has a vested interest in making the bill fail, that's true. Neither of those features applies to health care reform: the conservative politicians do NOT agree on the objectives with the liberal ones, and there are forty senators who have every reason to want the Democrats to fail to pass anything at all, especially a major reform bill that might make them popular.

You cannot compromise with someone whose greatest wish is to watch you fail miserably.
______

It all depends upon whether the compromises they demand are in the public interest or not. The compromise with Liebermann over the public option is an open question as is the attempt by Nelson to get some sort of abortion compromise. But improving the medical litigation system would be in the public interest. Making health insurance "portable" would be in the public interest. Why does the minority not have the right to demand either of those things as compromises? If the Democrats were in the minority and demanded that the public option be added, arguing that it would help the public, wouldn't they have a right to demand that compromise?

Up to a point... but when you're threatening to derail all action on an issue that is quite important to the public, one where everyone involved has reason to foresee a disaster looming over the nation in the next few decades?

At what point does the call for compromise end and hostage-taking begin?

True. On the other hand, you could equally well say that the middle perceived that the Republicans' base really was what the party stood for. And that they categorically rejected the party for that reason, in numbers large enough to overwhelm the Republican base. What does that say about the Republicans' current political stance, or about their base?

If true, it'd mean that we are a nation of Demicans and Republicrats like some libertarians say. As it is, both parties pursue different bases while trying to win the votes of those that aren't in either camp and the bases mark the difference between the two parties. Apparently, neither base is THAT objectionable to the middle because both parties have gotten significant traction while appealing to their bases in the past.

...?

I don't think that follows. If the middle rejects Party A because Party A is too far off to one side, it hardly proves that Party A and Party B are identical.

I do not think the middle are so easily fooled into shooting themselves in the foot. In 1994 that might have worked, because the Republicans had something new in mind. It was stupid, but it at least had the virtue of novelty going for it. But it's not going to work so well in 2010, when taking a "principled stand" on a platform that fighting in Iraq is important to defeat the terrorists, that welfare is socialism, and that big business should be free of regulation are all grossly discredited ideas.

I think that's why few if any Republicans argue the third one and the first one is being phased out as that conflict winds down. The second one isn't so much a principle as literally true: the concept of welfare fits the literal definition of socialism no matter how scary the word has become. The real debate is whether that level of socialism is in the public interest; if it is, obviously some socialism is a good thing and if it is not, it merely discredits that particular iteration of socialism. Either way, referring to welfare by a term that is an accurate description isn't much of a "position."

Serafine, if you've got enough mental discipline to refer to welfare as socialism without meaning it as an automatic insult, more power to you. That does not represent the standard level of political discourse in America, though; you know quite well what I mean when I talk about the right wing saying "welfare is socialism." Please don't try to pretend otherwise; it's self-degrading.

My point is that I'm listing examples of stuff that the hard core of the Republican base still believe. If we back out of Iraq, they're going to say it's because Obama doesn't care about fighting terrorism. If he regulates corporations to prevent the banks from crushing our economy entirely, they're going to say it's because he's secretly a communist. Ditto if he proposes to expand unemployment insurance programs (see Broomstick's comments in the "Food Stamps" thread for an example of why you can make a case for that needing to happen).

If Republican politicians choose to pander to that base, they will have to say and do things that will repulse the centrist American voter. And rightly so; a lot of them are repulsive, in light of our experiences with such policies over the past fifteen years.

The far-right core of the Republican Party simply does not represent a viable future for America, or for the Republican Party itself. They are too radical, too impractical, too systematically misled about the nature of events in the world and in their own country. They cannot rule well, nor can anyone they are likely to support en masse.

Serafine, if they were realistic, they wouldn't be teabaggers. They'd understand things like:
-Barack Obama is not a cartoon villain.
-"Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" is a stupid slogan.
-Sarah Palin is not a viable presidential candidate.

I actually didn't know that teabaggers believed either the first thing or the third thing.

I very much doubt that all teabaggers do, but the words and actions of some teabaggers, and of other people on the far right of American politics who have not specifically gone to "tea party" protests but who are closely allied with the teabaggers, make it pretty clear that some of them do.

So yes, I am using the word "teabaggers" in its derogatory sense. I don't have to; if you remove "teabagger" and replace with "right-wing radical" in all my statements, those statements are still about as true as far as I'm concerned.

But the debate over the accuracy of the term "teabagger" ignores a vital point: the standards of political discourse and analysis on the far right in the US are not rational. There are numerous reasons to believe this, which I and others have discussed at length. It is not hard to tell this from watching and listening to them, or from watching and listening to the sort of people they think are worth following and who they think should lead the nation.

That does not mean that all the individual members of that movement are personally stupid. However, as a mass movement the entire group is functionally stupid, or at least irrational, because they will do things like support Sarah Palin for President of the United States, or protest that Barack Obama isn't actually a citizen and that the federal government is therefore null and void. No rational person would do such a thing.

[Serafine666]

This only makes sense if the consensus bill has actual content. When everyone broadly agrees on objectives and no one has a vested interest in making the bill fail, that's true. Neither of those features applies to health care reform: the conservative politicians do NOT agree on the objectives with the liberal ones, and there are forty senators who have every reason to want the Democrats to fail to pass anything at all, especially a major reform bill that might make them popular.

You cannot compromise with someone whose greatest wish is to watch you fail miserably.

That is quite true. However, I think that the conservative politicians broadly agree with the idea that reforms need to be introduced to improve the healthcare system but they and the liberal politicians seem to have dramatically different ideas of what constitutes improvement and what reforms would be needed to get there.

Up to a point... but when you're threatening to derail all action on an issue that is quite important to the public, one where everyone involved has reason to foresee a disaster looming over the nation in the next few decades?

That's always a problematic situation because when you see ruin looming over the horizon, doing something is important but only if that something is the right thing. There are few situations that cannot be made worse by hasty action.

At what point does the call for compromise end and hostage-taking begin?

When the best course of action is unquestionable and the need too urgent to permit further deliberation.

...?

I don't think that follows. If the middle rejects Party A because Party A is too far off to one side, it hardly proves that Party A and Party B are identical.

However, it does follow that if the middle has accepted both Party A and Party B when both are making a deliberate effort to appeal to their respective bases, the middle must not think that either base is so extreme as to be unacceptable.

Serafine, if you've got enough mental discipline to refer to welfare as socialism without meaning it as an automatic insult, more power to you. That does not represent the standard level of political discourse in America, though; you know quite well what I mean when I talk about the right wing saying "welfare is socialism." Please don't try to pretend otherwise; it's self-degrading.

I know what they mean by it, Simon, which is why I acknowledged that the word has been made scary. I'm just saying that as a statement of fact, irrespective of who presents it and how, it isn't particularly controversial.

My point is that I'm listing examples of stuff that the hard core of the Republican base still believe. If we back out of Iraq, they're going to say it's because Obama doesn't care about fighting terrorism. If he regulates corporations to prevent the banks from crushing our economy entirely, they're going to say it's because he's secretly a communist. Ditto if he proposes to expand unemployment insurance programs (see Broomstick's comments in the "Food Stamps" thread for an example of why you can make a case for that needing to happen).

If Republican politicians choose to pander to that base, they will have to say and do things that will repulse the centrist American voter. And rightly so; a lot of them are repulsive, in light of our experiences with such policies over the past fifteen years.

Over the last 15 years, the only experiences relevant to those three things are the 1996 welfare reform and the shared responsibility for politicians supporting their pet organizations/banks/corporations that led to many of our current problems. The 1996 bill produced significant and beneficial results which, on the face of it, doesn't seem to be much of a repudiation of the idea that you can trim down the programs collectively known as "welfare" without destroying poor people. As to politicians in both parties protecting their big donors from regulations, the Republicans might have been the first to advocate limited regulation but both parties do what they can to protect their donors; it's just that one party incurs political costs from their shenanigans and the other does not. Which, admittedly, is because the Republicans have ownership of the bad idea.

The far-right core of the Republican Party simply does not represent a viable future for America, or for the Republican Party itself. They are too radical, too impractical, too systematically misled about the nature of events in the world and in their own country. They cannot rule well, nor can anyone they are likely to support en masse.

I suppose we'll find out in 2010 since appealing to their neglected base seems to be the Republican strategy to recoup their losses.

I very much doubt that all teabaggers do, but the words and actions of some teabaggers, and of other people on the far right of American politics who have not specifically gone to "tea party" protests but who are closely allied with the teabaggers, make it pretty clear that some of them do.

So yes, I am using the word "teabaggers" in its derogatory sense. I don't have to; if you remove "teabagger" and replace with "right-wing radical" in all my statements, those statements are still about as true as far as I'm concerned.

But the debate over the accuracy of the term "teabagger" ignores a vital point: the standards of political discourse and analysis on the far right in the US are not rational. There are numerous reasons to believe this, which I and others have discussed at length. It is not hard to tell this from watching and listening to them, or from watching and listening to the sort of people they think are worth following and who they think should lead the nation.

My only problem with the term is that "teabagger" seems to broadly indicate all the people involved with the so-called "tea parties" (who are, by no means, all right-wing radicals) whereas "right-wing radicals" specifically refers to the nuts that you have a problem with. The term confused me about who you were talking about, nothing more.

That does not mean that all the individual members of that movement are personally stupid. However, as a mass movement the entire group is functionally stupid, or at least irrational, because they will do things like support Sarah Palin for President of the United States, or protest that Barack Obama isn't actually a citizen and that the federal government is therefore null and void. No rational person would do such a thing.

No rational person would, that is true. I myself voted for the Libertarian candidate by virtue of closing my eyes and pointing because I wasn't going to vote for Obama and my sense of McCain/Palin is that they were unworthy of the office, Palin more than McCain.